decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Distortion of reality: Apple PR damage control perhaps? | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Koh Grants HTC's Redactions; Denies Samsung's Motion to File Supplement Expert Declaration~pj
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 09:58 PM EST
Well said.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Distortion of reality: Apple PR damage control perhaps?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:48 PM EST

Caveats:

  1. This is just my own reflection and deductive reasoning based on certain recent activities.
  2. This is just a possibility that may explain the posts. This does not in any way prove that the actual intent of the posts is for this reason.
On the way home I was reflecting on the recent posts targeting Samsung as having done something very wrong - while refusing to back it with any kind of evidence of course.

And today, there seems to be the double focus that you point out:

    Trying to convince us that this is "just a normal battle between companies".
But again: no citations. Not a single one to point out a single other company having petitioned the Court to resolve a licensing dispute then outright telling the Court that they will not honor the Court's decision unless it's of a specific value or less.

Then it dawned on me while I was on the train (lots of thought time riding the rails):

    Apple may have finally woken up to the damage they caused their own brand with their tactics!
If they have, then they'll be working mighty hard for damage control purposes. Mighty, mighty hard given how much damage they have caused themselves.

And what kind of damage control tactics are we potentially currently seeing?

    A) Get the focus of attention away from you!
Pointing a finger to the victim of doing something wrong is a favorite tactic of bullies I have witnessed. That includes bullies who have unsuccessfully targeted me. They seem to think where they fail at other tactics that their lieing accusations will work better.
    B) Claim this is just normal behavior!
Even HP made the claim that pre-texting was ok because "everyone is doing it!" Absolutely no indication of any recognition that pre-texting - at it's heart concept - is nothing more then identity fraud. Perhaps not the specific Legal definition of identity fraud - but the basic concept is clearly there.

So what other possible tactics can we expect? I think we can take the strategies we have witnessed over the years that have been presented by such entities as SCOg and extrapolate into what we can expect to potentially appear.

    1) Present citations that actually say the opposite of what you claim they say.
This may already have occurred given in another part of the thread P.J. appears to have corrected the interpretation that is potentially being presented with regards the case of Realtek v. LSI. It's hard for me to say that is a correction since the original poster has provided very little actual clarity on the specific point(s) he was citing the case as "proving" while P.J. has shown the case was dismissed. But it's a potential.
    2) Feed information to friendly "journalists" and then point to those articles as though they are 3rd party neutral investigations that corroborate your opinions while pretending you weren't the source of the information they printed.
We may already be seeing this in the claims of anti-trust examinations currently on-going against Google. We see certainly elements in behind those claims. Even though they are currently on-going investigations that have not reached any official statement of wrong-doing, they are being presented as evidence of wrong-doing.
    3) Attempt to rewrite history
We saw this in a number of cases where the entities involved started deleting information they themselves had posted to the net. Can we expect information on the wrong-doings of Samsung/Motorola/et al that is currently available on Apple controlled/influenced sites to start disappearing? Can we expect the documents/statements that Apple thought were good for it that are actually highly damaging to start disappearing? I wonder if FM has received the memo.
    4) Recognizing all these tactics are completely backfiring - the last tactic is to go silent. To disappear from the public communications and do everything possible in back-room negotiations.
Of course - if Apple had desired to enter good-faith negotiations for the FRAND patents, they should have made their deals outside the public eye like they always have in the first place.

Just some thoughts to consider as we observe what other interesting behaviors may be stirring.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )